Poll: What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscriptions?

Adobe's decision to move to a subscription-based model for its professional creative software has prompted probably the most impassioned response we've ever seen to a news story on dpreview.com. There's a risk that the sheer volume of comments might prevent a clear message being heard, so we've prepared a poll of the most common complaints, to help establish what your biggest concerns are.

While there's every chance you are uncomfortable with a number of aspects of Adobe's decision, we want to know what's most pressing. So please vote for the factor that is of greatest concern to you and we'll communicate the results to Adobe.

Have your say

What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscription-based software?

Comments

All (2377)

Most popular (15)

Editors' picks (0)

DPR staff (3)

Oldest first

(unknown member)

I have to say that there's a good outcome from Adobe's announcement, which is that a couple of friends with image processing product development efforts have suddenly gotten renewed interest from venture capital firms.

Schumpeter rules may well apply, and the world may benefit from an even better replacement.

Adobe has started a very valuable conversation here, among the pitchforks and torches.

Why is anyone storing their art in a proprietary file format that is not guaranteed to be around in 50 years? What plans are in place for accessing these valuable works in 50 years?

A friend of mine recently printed a project that combined her contemporary photographs with prints from some very old medium format film she discovered. She was still able to print, even though the camera manufacturer and the film manufacturer have both gone bankrupt and none of the components are available any more.

This is a major unresolved issue with digital photography. The technology is wonderful, but we are being very short-sighted in our approach to it.

Given the complaints I've read, I think it's absolutely on topic. People are shouting because Adobe can take away the ability to edit files in Photoshop if you don't pay them, but if Adobe goes bankrupt all the money in the world won't ensure access to files saved without some backward compatibility.

DNG, while it has its problems, seems like a start. That's the sort of thing people should be demanding across the board - open formats. But those are only the beginning.

What about the longer-term issue? Or are people just using this as a club to beat Adobe, and they don't actually care about open access to their work?

Only if a program exist 50 years time that can open tiff. Also as the moment Adobe don't have the only program that opens .PSD at the moment either so if after a while they don't want to continue with CC there are other programs which may not be as good but still open the files. Bottom line is though they should be saving them as a tiff or jpeg copy as well when they finish editing.

A lot of people are using all of this as an excuse to bash Adobe. Trouble is it does not make them look very smart, they sometimes get their facts wrong, don't fully understood CC fully and it just comes across as ranting rather than constructive criticism which Adobe could look to act on.

While you're not correct about copyright, you bring up a very valid point. Why is everyone crying about how they won't be able to access their files when there are many software packages (including GIMP) that will open PSD files?

Yup. TIFF proves that, as with operating systems, older is both better and less trouble. Speaking of older, I have transparencies in fire resistant file cabinets and digital files on hard drives. I wonder which will be easier to access in 20-30 years.

"In the past 24 hours, we’ve gotten tons of emails asking, congratulating, and commenting about Big Brother’s new move. So I thought I should write a short note about it. As Pixelmator developers, we were quite (pleasantly) surprised by this move.I must say our pricing, ownership, and development philosophy are completely different from Big Brother. We focus only on creating the world’s best image editing app. Nothing else. No distractions. Just this to drive us forward: the compulsive curiosity to see what happens after we have the perfect image editing app ready for you. [..]"

So it still has the same stupid auto save feature with versioning. Not a great idea with an image app. One person already reporting it is using over 8.5 GB of memory. Really suggest anyone looking at this software read all the 1 star reviews on the app store first of all as the same problems keeping coming up including a company that appears to offer poor support. Many have said even at the price it cost it is not worth the money or is not as good as GIMP which does not say a lot for it.

Opportunity for DSLR manufacturers:Support plain DNG will become a competitive advantage!

Total Cost of DSLR with new RAW format:700 USD DSLR with new RAW960 USD = 20 USD / month PS CC * 12 month / year * 4 year----1660 USD for using my cool new DSLR for 4 years using RAW files

Now compare this with a camera that supports plain DNG:700 USD DSLR with DNG format----700 USD for using my cool new DSLR for 4 years using DNG RAW files ( or longer even )

Finally we are getting one file format for RAW ? Eureka!

Background:There seems to be a consensus here: Adobe CS6 is here to stay, but expected that in a year or so it is useless in case you buy a new camera with a new RAW format. So the only way to get the new ACR supporting the new RAW format would be to subscribe to Adobe Photoshop Cloud. Or a smart DSLR maker sees the opportunity and delivers every new camera with the very same DNG file format. Maybe Adobe shot themselves into the leg ?

Adobe has been upgrading the DNG format specification from time to time. As RAW file format capabilities and DNG format capabilities advance, the RAW to DNG converters has to be upgraded. Eventually I can see a time when the latest DNG file will be incompatible with CS6 because Adobe eventually won't spend the money to ensure that it works in this manner.

@ MarcosI heard and I can believe that Adobe will do this. But frankly, there is a DNG file format which stores 16 bit, EXIF DATA, included loss-less compression. In other word it stores all data a camera possibly would want to store. So if this file format works today with CS6, the very same format will work so in 10 years from now. All the camera maker has to do is to support this one, and not the latest incarnation of Adobe that brakes existing CS6 installations.

I see one of the sites that shills for the high end camera industry and Adobe are already saying that it's you're fault, you're not professional enough! Besides what's $20 bucks a month out of the generous public pension I'm paying the site owner? Whatever happened to honesty?

I'm sure if you put a bunch of people together in a video singing Cumbaya Adobe, this will be made to look like the best thing that ever happened to the digital photography consumer for sure. Besides, as they put it, Elements will still be sold! See, you're just not professional enough LOL.

Here is a very good Article about facts on Adobe Photoshop Cloud which is missing entirely in the discussions here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/adobe_cc.shtml. And for those who just want to rant there is a good cartoon and a link on a very dark satire on youtube.

* With one license you can legally work on many computers, including the cool feature that if you travel and forgot your notebook, got it stolen or it broke, you can de-authorize your notebook, download the PS CC SW on any other PC and authorize the PC you just found. When back home with working notebook you can reverse the process. This is actually quite cool and useful for those who travel.

* There is lots of added value in included for publishing your work. Who pays monthly fees for professional photography sharing sites actually saves money with Adobe PS CC.

These are facts missing in this discussion here and are listed there.

Do not misunderstand me. I am very much against this move of Adobe to leave the customer no choice and consider this a slap into my face after 20 years. But all facts should be on the table.

@ HenryI took the time and searched this page and no link to that Article showed up.

I see nothing positive about this move. I'm on Adobe products every day, all day, right now. BUT for my home photo and design work, I doubt I will move from v5 to the cloud until it's absolutely necessary. And even then, there will hopefully be a PRODUCT I can buy rather than a SERVICE I need to subscribe to.

I've invested years of time in Adobe products, and bought them time after time. But I will bet there's a new PRODUCT out soon from another company that will fullfill my needs. I'll begin looking.

I love that cartoon - thanks for sharing. I wonder what would happen if you were working on something controversial or what if you ran into legal issues related to copyright/model release issues. Could big brother turn off the spigot until their legal sensibilities are satiated?

I am done with this! I will just continue with CS6 and LR4 until Corel PSP goes 64 bit, it does all i really need from PS. Layers, curves, levels, masks, adjustment layes, filters, lens corrections, blending, cloning, brush. The only thing missing is panoramas but there are other tools that can handle that. PSP has good tools to process RAW into Tiff which is going to be my default file from now on. I would continue buying LR upgrades, but now i really can't trust ADBE and i don't want to invest in a product that may go the rental way.I would be more than happy to,purchase an upgrade for PS is adobe ever reconsiders if not, fine... they can go to hell.

I only upgrade PS to get access to bridge and ACR.I DON"T LIKE LiGHTROOM. sorry but I just don't

Bridge has all the important editing tools and I think in the past the new ones were in bridge/ACR before LR The reason I prefer bridge/acr is that you work on a folder and the corrections are stored as sidecar files no central cache.

you can do all that in bridge.there is nothing amazing about so many different ways to sort, filter, rate, keyword and search that has been standard since CS2 in some form.

I think the pyramids are ancient

The sort of work I do there is absolutely no advantage in a central cache.Job shot, delivered,archived I rarely need to go back and if I do any machine with PS can access the files, with all the adjustments.

1) Their software is mature, they don't have a lot to add;2) However they have continual adjustments to achieve in order to keep up with the new new cameras, hardwares and OS issued.This less visible work has to be financed too. Until now Adobe relied on the upgrades to get cash, but with a mature PS, customers are skipping them. A monthly fee takes care of that.

But Adobe blundered the introduction of the new model :1) They ask an unfair price from photographers, dissuading not only the occasional hobbyist, which Adobe didn't target, but also a lot of freelancers whose financial situation is often worse. 2) They are introducing the new system brutally without leaving choice : instead of convincing users that the new model is better by attractive and flexible offerings, they are alienating the consumers who fill trapped and thus rebell. 3) Confidence in Adobe products is shaken : could we loose access to our files if we stop paying the fee ?

Take google as an excellent example in their handling of the purchase of NIK. Price reduced to $149 from several hundred. Free complete package to all existing registered owners and refund of difference paid if purchased within a specific time period.

Adobe should allow upgrades to CS6 according to their previous policy for everyone below CS5.5, Give free upgrades to CS6 for all registered users of CS5.5 and maintain ACR for CS6 for 10 years. And then they can introduce their CC model and see who wants it.

This would have created obviously some comments but an overall positive response, in my view. As it now stands they have a huge PR disaster on their hands. At DPR there are almost 6,000 responses which is unprecedented, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Their marketing people should be fired, what unbelievable arrogance. They have totally lost my trust and my opinion of this company is extremely negative. Great HBR example of how not to do it.

You don't loose access to your raw files, but to your working files and to the finished results if you didn't save a Tif or Jpeg copy of them. This means that you can't revisit your past working files to improve them or change them. In the worst case, if you didn't export the files in a new non proprietary format, you loose your postprocessing work.

The negative is the raw, not even Adobe can rob it from you, provided you have kept it. Well the very worst case would be if you have thrown away your raw file and didn't export to another non proprietary format !

I may still have my .DNG file. But what about the hours of work i spent on the layers? I'd have to start everything again. _From scratch._ I'm still looking for a fitting comparison in real life, but it looks like Adobe was really the first to come up with a model that would rob you of your work once you stop paying them. And that is nothing to be proud of.

This is not acceptable Adobe! I cant believe you want to totally ruin your business! Just because you want to be able to take money constantly and not have to worry about updating, since you will get your money anyways. This is by far the stupidest idea i have heard from you guys ever!!! Get a Grip, Adobe. Respect the customers!!!

Aside of Adobe's greed, the software subscription model (as an only option to use a particular software) paves the way for a very dangerous development. Just imagine how easy it will get to cut politically non-conforming people or groups from using professional tools.Just imagine what power a government gets to control what you are doing and to stop you from doing / editing / publishing pictures that may convey politically uncorrect or unpopular messages. The government just needs to call adobe and ask to cut certain customers' licences et voila - there you go, George Orwell. This alone may be readon enough to defend our principal human rights of freedom of speech and dismiss business models that may inherently allow for maximal control and patronizing of free citizens.

cloud as an option is ok - but - forcing users to the cloud is pure domination. i dont like this style. i do not want to be dominated. i am adobe-customer since 1993 (early psd) - i never will move to a subscription-model. adobe software is a product which i want to own (like my car). imagine: crysler moves to subscription-only salesmodel. for me its a greedy move from adobe. with cloud they can treat customers like hostages.

Well, bearing in mind you just have to take Adobe's word that the whole range of products will continue to improve what incentive do they have to do that if the money automatically flows in? Would you trust that to a company whose CEO answers questions in this manner? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juM46ny1WhM

In what way is my comment posted in 'the wrong place'? Stu 5: There is a pressure on customers to stay with Adobe unless they can access file formats in alternative software once they drop their subscription. You could say that's always been there but I think the balance has now tipped towards the advantage of the company rather than the customer.

Charming - the CEO's refusal to listen (or respond sensibly) to legitimate customer issues - and shutting down a press conference - are consistent with some stuff in yesterday's Bloomberg link:

INTERVIEWER: "... 750 people were laid off as part of this restructuring. How many more people are going to lose their jobs?"

CEO: "Well we've actually been growing as a company. Since we announced our strategy to focus on CC ..., the company has actually been firing on all cylinders."

I'm no expert, but this wording strikes me as unfortunate - especially the reference to "firing".

I also don't like it when anyone tries to impose THEIR way on people who don't want it - it's called bullying. In trying to force all his loyal customers to take out subscriptions, this guy is inviting a "digital" response - exact number of digits unknown, but probably low.

By this, I mean something along the lines of: "The door's that way. You're about to go through it. You might wish to open it first."

As a daily pro user of LR and PS, (i'm working on it now!) my workflow usually resides in LR and for the images necessary for PS are then exported to PS as 16 bit TIFFs where further work is carried out.

While I need to constantly upgrade my LR to keep up with RAW compatibility, I find that I don't need to upgrade PS that often, usually doing the every-second-or-third-version method, as older CS versions support large TIFFs and their relevant PSDs. Currently on CS5 and very happy with it.

I won't go to the CC model. Terrible idea. While other pro colleagues use the subscription service and love it, I prefer owning it outright.Why is it that difficult for them to offer the choice? Isn't it too obvious?

If LR goes that way, I'll be in trouble and will most definitely have to start thinking hard about looking around and relearning another program....

and this is from someone that has been using Adobe since PS5.5, and that isn't CS5.5 either!

I respect that they have CC as an option for people who want it. But it's unforgivable that they completely take away perpetual license away as an option for those who want it. The fact that the did tells me they know many of their users wouldn't go CC if they had the choice, no matter what they're saying.

Not every user buys every upgrade they release because some of them are modest improvements. If you fall into that category, CC will cost you way more over time and there's no guarantee they're not going to jack the prices up later either. Then if you don't keep paying you could lose access to your previous work because who knows how it will work with earlier versions of CS.

Absolutely : Adobe has a very unfair price policy for other continents : they often pay up to 20-25% more for the same product. Buying an English version instead of a French/German/Italian/Spanish one doesn't make a difference, you get ripped too. Same for UK, Australia etc.

To be fair Adobe's decision has several aspects and some are understandable, even for me.

I don't want to know how many illegal copies of Photoshop and the CS suite in general are used all over the world.And for the developing company that's a loss of much money.On the other hand: how many users might pay provided Adobe's price was lower??

Most users like us (prosumers/amateurs) will nearly never use the plethora of the software's options.So lets ask: Do we need such a mighty program at all orwould it be enough to have the option for occasional usage if necessary?

If we compare software usage with usage of a train or taxi or a cleaning servicepaying for pure usage only (and not a continous load) might be the fairest solution in my view.

Paying for usage would be more expensive for the professional (but don't forget the option of flat rates or comparable options) and much less expensive for the occasional user.

At present that's only possible with a webbased solution (not a version which is installed on our hardware). Or you pay on these conditions per month (in reality PER YEAR!). But to pay for such long period with usage only now and then is too expensive (and NOT FAIR or appropriate).

Let us think about another option: Something like a (secure!) counter on your computer which enables the option to pay on a real fee-per-time basis. Of course most of us won't accept such a (necessarily) hardware-bundled solution.(But we could think about an indepent way of paying via a form of trust service or similar solutions). In fact that might be a new and innovative idea at all.

FINAL WORDOnly payment correlated to REAL usage is fair! A monthly/yearly fee is only fair for those with intensive usage, not for most of us.

Well, I don't have problems: Still there are other options than Adobe products. Adobe's "innovation" might give an impetus to other companies or independent developers.Our only obstacle is being used to Photoshop and the other CS-products.

With the new scheme, Adobe will deny access to Photoshop software if someone does not continue to pay the subscription fees. However, if one uses PhotoShop CC to create a uniquely layered and edited original image in the .psd format (a image against which the creator has copywrite rights and control), does Adobe have the right to deny the creator access to their unique copywritten image by denying access to the file format (in this case .psd)?

CC may well be just the first step. It would be entirely possible to restrict the entire creative suite of programs to server side execution, so that none of the program bits ever leave Adobe servers. All they need to do is have all the grunt work take place on a very powerful system in the cloud. All your files and output would be hostage to the Adobe cloud. If you keep paying you get access to your files and to the executable online.

I only need Photoshop. I have been paying $11 or less per month for it ($199 for 18 months) since buying-in at 4.0. Now, after 12 months at $10/month, I'll be paying $20/month. That's nearly a doubling of the recent price. This is quite a slap in the face for my loyalty. Needless to say, I'm looking for an alternative and I'm sure new ones will be coming down the pike soon.

Adobe has ended the traditional model of "we make a better product first, then you decide to buy it," with "pay us $20/month in advance, and we promise to keep making PS better." Besides being 50% more than the $199 / 18 months I had been paying, how can I now trust them to do that?

I'm amazed no one is asking that question. What is Adobe's motivation (i.e. profit incentive) to keep producing new features? Is the same corporate mind-set that dreamed up this CC scheme going to continue investing in R&D when they already have our yearly commitment in payments? It's likely that improved product features could soon fall into the same rut that product fixes have been in for years with Adobe -- rare.

I've talked about the same thing on another forum. The only thing that does makes sense is if they jack the prices up later. Otherwise, why invent a new program when they're already getting the $50? Why do much to improve existing programs? Are they just going to do all that out of the kindness of their hearts? I don't think so. Some may say competition but over the years they've bought out much of it to the point it's challenging to find a viable alternative in some cases.

They can have all the lackluster improvements (or none at all) if they like for as long as they like. And if you're using CC, you will keep paying because if you don't, you lose access to your work.

Yes they can cancel their subscription, but then they will loose access to all their finished working files, if they used to store them as psd files or in the XML companion files. It means they would lose their work : inadmissible !!

I do not rent a car if I can not afford to buy one, I will use public transportation then. If I pay for something, I want to be the owner of that something. It is just common sense economics. All I know that for this 'virtual' product, one will pay $600.00 a year, and at the end of which I own nothing.

How is is common sense economics to pay a large sum of money for something that is outdated almost as soon as you get it out of the box? Purchasing software is a *terrible* investment. How much expensive, worthless software have you got stashed away in your garage or attic that is completely useless now? I have lots of it.

"Purchasing software" is not a terrible investment. If you upgraded on alternate upgrades, this subscription model costs you at least four times as much. And in the end you get NOTHING. And for less innovation than we are getting now, which is why Adobe wants to lock us in. Once they do, there is no incentive to upgrade.

Maybe a big part of the anger comes from the fact that up until this week I was naive enough to consider Adobe one of the good guys and a company that actually helped me be creative.

Now, after hearing about this, and about their licensing on the Director 12 software for iOS apps, (which will now cost developers 10% of their earnings on any app which makes more than $20,000). I have had a very rude awakening

Hmm. Maybe chisel makers should charge you 10% commission on any item you make with your chisel that earns more than $20,000. Carve a log with it and its cheap. Produce an expensive sculpture and you pay more. After all,must be a different tool.

Yes the software that they have still not fixed after 5 months months that has a bug so large that it crashes computers with certain graphic cards and has caused some to lose data off their hard drives. Sounds perfect.

The quick poll doesn't really seem to hit the nail on the head with what really bothers me about all this. Basically, Adobe want me to subscribe & pay and pay and pay and continue to pay... theoretically I could pay many times more than the cost of owning a regular CS version, BUT, the day I decide I've had enough and cut the funding - cancel the subscription... the end of that billing cycle all the software ceases to work. Oh yes, I get to keep all my precious files - no worries there Adobe, thanks guys! I just won't have a blessed program with which to open them (unless that is, if I ferret back and blow off the dust off of CS6). But by then who knows if that will even work on Windows whatever. Or maybe the new PSD format du jour won't be backwards compatible.

Do you get my drift? I'd like to buy the software and own it. That way I know that I'll always be able to open and edit whenever I want. And if I want to skip a version (like version CS5.5) and save that money, I can.

People are also forgetting the company bean counters' issues. In many larger companies, the graphics or video editing or animation staff are three or four upgrades behind (as well as NOT connected to the web) . Partly because they can manage fine, and it's not so easy to persuade the accountants to shell out for more, particularly when there are other more important production purchases in the pipeline.

Now Adobe is expecting OUR company accounts department, for instance, to sign on for a subscription, with no guaranteed price control beyond the coming year or so. They are expecting us to commit to a contract that can be unilaterally changed. Good luck to the person pushing the paperwork to put that through.

"Although Adobe said it's pleased with the faster-than-expected Creative Cloud signup rate and that customer satisfaction for the subscription is high, but the company is also facing a vocal criticism."

What does that mean ? Probably that Adobe is mulling the idea to bundle LR with PS, but then that we would be forced to enter in the fee system for LR too. Aka rent both apps in a bundle or go elsewhere.. If they ever make LR only available in a bundle with PS, then all those using only LR will have to cash more and to enter in the rent for life option. We may have to swallow that earlier than Adobe announced first.

Photographers have more alternatives available than graphists working on complex composites, so Adobe may fear a customers hemoragy.

Keep on protesting and pressuring Adobe, we may get something. Because we need PS less than others and we have alternatives.

I upgrade to CS from PS7 for ACR. I get a new body and I need the most current revision of ACR, which means I need CS2, so I upgraded to CS2. Along comes my 7d and guess what? I need another PS upgrade for the latest and greatest revision of ACR.

Nope. All this PS upgrading. I felt like a junkie waiting for his next fix. I didn't do it.

For RAW, I use DPP, and when I really, really want to extract every ounce of detail out of a RAW file, I use Raw therapee. From there I go to my good old Photoshop 7.

I can do most everything in PS7 that can be done in CS Whatever, it just takes a few more steps. I don't feel like I'm missing much at all. PS7 is safely on a disk, along with it's serial number.

Well, I did use PS because I like pretty pictures, but in all honesty, I don't use all the functions anyway. Since Winston and Adobe don't seem to want us amatuers around, and have said so with this resounding the slap in the face, I think I'll shop around for other (non-Adobe) programs, and start using them NOW as a matter of principle. Make no mistake, I am completely on the side of the professional photogs, and wish them only the best in finding non-Adobe solutions as well. The arrogance of Winston in his response is amazing, and imho should be reason enough for leaving Adobe.

Find a journalist who works for stock related media such as Forbes and who is in a position Adobe would not refuse an interview.

This is why this interview is of interest to the general public and Adobes share holder:

* Adobe became famous and build their foundation with Photoshop* Photoshop's core customer have been Photographers* The biggest Photography community dpreview is in anger with Adobe's new License model. Feedback was 2000% more intensive than anything seen before and 95% of Photoshop users are now looking to walk away from Photoshop ( poll @ dpreview )* Since 6 month Adobe stock was on a steady rise. After the new license announcement the stock is taking a steady nose dive

Making rejection of Adobe Photoshop core customers known to share holders will cause more stock to be sold and thus will send a message that is heard to Adobe Management.

* 95% of Photographers who have been the core customers of Photoshop are now planning to walk away from Photoshop, how is this affecting the motivation of key developers such as Thomas Knoll who are photographers at heart? Are you loosing your most important innovators ?

* Everybody agrees Adobe Photoshop is the king of the hill for Photography Editing and the new license policy will bring in more cash short term. A very good short term plan. But considering 95% of Photoshop customers plan to switch to competitors products in the next 3 years, what is Adobe's plan to increase income on Photoshop after 3 years ?

These questions are written in a way to drive the information home to the listener of the interview. It is expected Adobe representatives will dodge the questions and deliver misinformation. However the questions contain enough information to make share holders worry and dig deeper. Adobe avoiding the question will make them worry even more.

I think that a lot of users like myself only need Photoshop Elements 11. If you combine that with Elements XXL that adds 120 new functions to Elements, you probably get all you need to edit your photos. At least the total cost is around $125. for both products. I hope Elements stays around for a long time. Corel Paintshop Pro X5 Ultimate is also an interesting alternative to CS6 for amateurs. Maybe 10% of users really need CS6.

Reading and listening to their interviews you come back with the understanding that the way to make money is to be at odds to your customer and not to care about it. Worse, reading comments here it appears they already make many people believe that in order to make more money you need to be ad odds to the customer. This is a really bad example for business causing a damage way beyond the scope of Photoshop Users.

The Leica interview clearly shows Leica's success of entering a complete new market segment is created by working extremely close with the customer, making the customer's success their success. This is an important role model for other marketing directors. I wish more photography company do win - win marketing such as Leica and less do Win-Loose marketing such as Adobe.

Well.... I remember that the MICROSOFT OFFICE is the first one to using this kind of payment method?

Actually... I think CS is much more worth then the OFFICE which made me paid monthly for the programme.... I using my OFFICE 2003 , very useful , fast (the new Office was load very slowly...) , not so many new but essential function..... but need me to paid it monthly? Oh my Gorsh......

Office doesn't MAKE you pay monthly for the program. I just installed the latest version, and I installed the standalone version of it. No one is complaining about companies offering you the OPTION, as Microsoft does for now. They are complaining about it being compulsory. If you have subscribed to the monthly version of Office now, and you don't want it, you have screwed up. The standalone version still exists.

@ RallyfanThanks for your comment. I think the Leica's interview referred to their legacy in photo journalism, which was in the seventies where Leica indeed was the camera of choice for photojournalists. Thereafter they lost this market, which he admitted in the interview. But this has been 40 years ago, hence your misunderstanding. It is a very traditional German company where such legacy was still ingrained in their company culture even it was no more relevant at all. That is why the move of Leica ( if so very much belated ) was so impressive to turn a very outdated company into a technology and market leading company once again, after having lost the touch to actual professional use for so long time. My point was that the interview rings true, through and through and that Leica worked with customers, for customers to improve their work life. Win - Win with respect and listening to customers. This is really opposite of what adobe does to photographers right now.

"The CC model does not work for the hobbyist photographer". Most hobbyist I know really don't need anything more then picasa anyway, or at the very most elements. they think they do....but they don't. BUT if they want it.. well, who said any hobbies were cheap? Pro's will pass this cost to the customers. End of story.ll No matter how wildly used PS was never a program for the masses. That's even the ones who "got in early way back in 2.1"

True, Designers and video guys get the lion's share of the 30+ programs and are the ones who will not bat a eye at it.As for photographers with a web presence, don't discount prosite. Its very good. I dropped my squarespace sites and moved my url's over to prosite and I am SAVING $30 a month. So CC is putting money back into my pocket.

Sure, I am worried about future price increases but that's at least a few years out.

Leo, it isnt just hobbyists, remember this to access your wor, your professional designs, working files for your images, illustrations, your websites, and video files etc. Every time you want to access them you have to pay Adobe, forever.

All your work from the day they upgrade away from CS6 compatibility every single item, every single project you have worked on will have a FEE just for you to revisit them, in a professional capacity or not.

Now this is great for the young designer who never plonked down $2000 for their software, but I have 8 copies of Design Premium CS6, that is $400 a month, and every time Adobe chooses to put it's prices up, my costs go up... And believe me, they will put them up.

So that $4800 a year will creep to $5200, will creep to $5700... etc. and to be honest in a huge global recession tying your ability to work to a monthly cost is risky... Being able to work and earn an income only if you pay Adobe is limiting. It is a bad move from Adobe.

"Sure, I am worried about future price increases but that's at least a few years out." Is your middle name "short-sighted" by any chance. Let's say that 95% of customers DO jump ship. Hell, let's even say only 75% do. Who do you think is paying for Adobe's "development and research" then? How do you think Adobe satisfies its shareholders with only 25% of the customers it now has?

Subscribers will be paying, they will be a captive audience, and they will be locked in.

And the "program is not for the masses" arrogance is silly. Consumer products are for whoever manufacturers sell them to.

I have to agree with Leo. Hobbyists are simply not worthy of Photoshop. They don't know what they want but it isn't Photoshop. They should express their gratitude to Adobe for stooping so low as to deal with amateurs, hobbyists and students. As Garth would say "We are not worthy!" Heh, heh (I put this in because someone will think I am being serious).

Not true. Every vendor, marketing firm, print company is at least 2 or 3 generations behind. The only ones running to get the latest and the greatest are 1.trust fund babies and 2. Hobbiest who think the latest photoshop will make their cat pictures look good enough to garner karma on Reddit.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.